Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive117

User:Mo HH92 reported by User:Manticore55 (Result: Use DR)

Page: Stephenie Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mo HH92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [1]
• 2nd revert: [2]
• 3rd revert: [3]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

• the page you are reporting the violation on doesn't exist please fix up the report as it won't be actioned otherwise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I repaired the header; report should be ready for review now. User:Mo HH92 seems to be repeatedly removing a well-sourced Criticism section from the article. I'll leave him a note, and ask him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the criticism section, but why include it again when it is already mentioned in the main Twilight series page? The author's article only comments on her life, backgrounds and literary achievements. All the criticism of her books needs to go on the pages of the books itself and not on HER article. People may find it extremely confusing.Mo HH92 ^Talk 18:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Slightly stale report where subsequent discussion has shown a willingness to discuss changes to avoid a continuing edit war. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ASOTMKX reported by User:67.66.219.252 (Result: Declined)

Page: Feel It (Three 6 Mafia song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ASOTMKX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [5]
• 3rd revert: [6]
• 4th revert: [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

• Comment. The links that User:67.66.219.252 has been adding, and User:ASOTMKX has been reverting, seem to be spam links (free song downloads) that violate WP:EL. I have now warned 67.66.219.252 on their talk page about posting spam links. In my opinion, User:ASOTMKX was right to revert the addition of these links repeatedly. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• No 3RR warning was given. I have now notified ASOTMKX of this discussion. It is arguable whether a download link is actually spam when this is the article about the song. One might argue the song isn't notable enough to have its own article, but that's another question. ASOTMKX has made about 40 reverts in the last couple of days, some of which are self-reverts. Mysterious. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the link was spam and agree with Dawn Bard completely. ASOTMKX (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Above under the Definition of the three revert rule it states "The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons."

The 3rd and 4th revert were self reverts which this page says do not count. And it also says the reverts do not apply to copyright violations, which I believe the link is. ASOTMKX (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• An admin can now change this discussion title to Result: No Violation, because I am completely in the right. And i also agree to the suggestion that EdJohnston put on my talk page to post the situation at WT:WPSPAM if this type of thing happens again. ASOTMKX (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Declined See comments above. All seems reasonable. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Fragma08 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 31h )

Page: Mufti Ebrahim Desai‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fragma08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]
• 5th revert: [12]
• 6th revert: [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments: This is a WP:COATRACK blp violation. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please in your own words--rather than just referencing/linking to the guidance, explain why this particular source is a violation. We know the rule, but how do you believe it applies to the fatwa?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In my defence, I would like to bring to the board's attention, which I also explained several times to User:Hipocrite, that this is not a coatrack issue. The grounds on, which User:Hipocrite removed the content ("coatrack and defamatory information"), when clearly one can not a claim a person's work or words are defamatory to same persons article, were the reason for my reverts which I also explained in my edits as well on his talkpage. I will eloborate.

The article was reduced to a stub following discovery of copyright issues, hence large part of the biography was removed at 21:16, 24 November 2009 . Only 6 minutes later, User:Hipocrite calls the article coatrack at 21:22, 24 November 2009 and repeatedly removes the information pertaining to the mufti, which could also be reported as violation. Opinions and fatwas of muftis are quite common to the relevant scholar's biography (interlinked), if you look at other mufti or scholar articles on wikipedia. Thus I fail to see the rationale of User:Hipocrite. Attempted disussion with User:Hipocrite, resulted in him telling me, he did not want to discuss with me, which I respected. I now learn he has reported me.

Fatwas are dependent on the mufti or scholar, who issues them and therefore talking about secondary references is irrelevant as the fatwa depends solely on the fatwa issuer again dependent on sectarian background. The fatwa is, what the mufti issues, and the content was quoted in context but as it was in his own words. The information belongs there but the article must be expanded. One can not seriously expect expansion to happen straight away as it is time consuming.

Hence the report filed by User:Hipocrite is quite irrational and coatrack claims are unfounded considering the above. I can not help feel this is an attempt based on bias of getting rid of editors, one does not agree with. Fragma08 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More reverts:

• 7th revert (still in one 24 hour period) [16] - Removes the tag directing readers to talk to discuss the coatrack issue.
• 8th revert (still in one 24 hour period) [17] - reverts yet another editor removing the coatracky rape discussion.

Is this page watched by anyone? Hipocrite (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue can not be a coatrack 6 minutes afte majority of the biography has been removed. The whole coatrack argument would be valid if it was over longer period of time. Hence tag removed. I did not see the harm therefore. If this really was a coatrack I would have no problem, but in the period of 6 minutes, hardly. Allow for time for the article to be built again with references.Fragma08 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• 31h for the clear 3RR violation - I would advise User:Hipocrite to stop at 3RR in future where the BLP issue is not completely obvious, though. Black Kite 12:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Spitzer19 reported by User:Gaius Octavius Princeps (Result: 3 days)

Page: National Democratic Party of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Spitzer19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]
• 5th revert: [22]
• 6th revert: [23]
• 7th revert: [24]
• 8th revert: [25]
• 9th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] The User deleted a previous warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

Endless reverts. Completely unreasonable behaviour from user who has been blocked several times before for this. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) -->

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Though reduced to 24 hours as they haven't edited in 2 days. I was distracted andf failed to realise the date stamps. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:119.122.174.129 reported by User:ianmacm (Result: 31h / page protected)

Page: Flash Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 119.122.174.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

There is an ongoing problem at Flash Video with IP users based in China adding links to brand name software. The issue has been discussed on the talk page, but it is becoming tiring to remove this without discussion. Also a violation of WP:NPA here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• 3 spamlink entries and an NPA = 31 hours. Page semi-protected. Black Kite 12:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Fragma08 reported by User:Quantpole (Result: 31h)

Page: Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fragma08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]
• 5th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute: [35], [36] and see [37]

Comments:

Repeated reinsertion of material into an article that is only sourced to a persons website, with no independent sources to show importance of info. Continuing edit warring after being warned. Quantpole (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Ooops, sorry, whilst (very slowly) putting this together I failed to notice that this had already been reported. No further action needed thanks! Quantpole (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Already blocked Nja²⁴⁷ 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche reported by User:YellowFives (Result: Declined)

• Three-revert rule violation on Anwar al-Awlaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 06:43, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "this statements is true, and RSs in the article backing individual instances support it")
2. 18:29, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by 92.10.110.132 identified as vandalism to last revision by YellowFives. (TW)")
3. 18:36, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Ideology */")
4. 01:33, 25 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327763527 by YellowFives (talk)")

In three of these reverts, Epeefleche is edit warring to include a WP:BLP violation, which I have explained in my summaries. The revert of 92.10.110.132 is a misuse of Twinkle rollback to call a content dispute vandalism.

(This is not the first recent instance of calling good-faith IP edits vandalism. Epeefleche left five consecutive vandalism warnings at User talk:98.204.201.79, starting at 17:26, for a series of six content-dispute edits which had already ended at 17:09, two of which had edit summaries which made clear that this was a content dispute and not vandalism. The IP editor then asked at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki why the warnings, and received no answer.)

Please let me know if the harassment of the IP editor and the abuse of Twinkle can not be dealt with here, so I can report it at AN/I instead. ~YellowFives 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks very much like a content dispute to me. Let's see:

• revert one
• revert two
• revert three
• revert four

I count 4:3 in favour of the plaintiff. Why don't you discuss - a bunch of edit summaries do not constitute a discussion. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a content dispute. Where do you suppose edit warring usually happens, if not in content disputes? That does not make it acceptable for Epeefleche to break 3RR. My removals of BLP-violating content are required by the WP:BLP policy, which says that it is Epeefleche who must argue to gain consensus for their inclusion.

That does not address Epeefleche's harassment of the IP editor and abuse of Twinkle, by the way. ~YellowFives 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also this edit which you called "revert one" was not a revert. ~YellowFives 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. My above-indicated four edits differ. Some deal with completely different paragraphs. Some revise the language in an effort to placate YF. One adds footnotes (that were already in the article, but not appended to the sentence).
2. As explained to YF in the very first edit, the statements that YF and an unknown IP in tandem were deleting have RSs, already reflected in the article.
3. There was no synth. The RSs made the indicated statements.
4. There was not BP violation. The RSs made the statements.
5. The IP reverted at #2 above on YF's list--who has made only two references ever--made two deletions, both of which included deletions of refs, and didn't even leave an edit summary for either deletion.
6. When I reverted IP 98.204.201.79 (the second IP YF mentions), and left an edit warning, it was appropriate, as YF well knows, and as a glance at those edits will show (they consist, for example, of the IP's deletions of sourced statements along with their footnotes, and insertion by the IP of debatable unsourced blog-like statements). See here.
7. YF then wikihounded me (something he has done before, and continues to do), and told that IP in essence to ignore my warnings--writing "Your edits are not vandalism".
8. YF has been a problematic, tendentious editor who has appeared at article I edit shortly after his recent creation, and even before the Muslim Mafia AfD that he brought. A glance at his interactions with other editors there gives a sense for his style. He insisted on fighting with other editors, who voted 17-2 against his AfD (with one telling me after he would have changed the vote to 18-1 if I had asked him to take another look). One of the other editors there was concerned as well that YF might be wikihounding him.
9. Just 12 days ago I had a problem with YF constantly reverting me. I tried edit summaries. I then tried discussion on his talk page. To no avail. Only then did I go the 3RR page. During that discussion, the information YF was deleting as not backed by a RS (despite contrary views on the RS Noticeboard) was ultimately supported by clear RSs as well, so the issue became moot. Whereupon Black Kite -- embroiled in a concurrently in a separate dispute with me, but somehow not seeing that as a COI -- closed the 3RR as no violation.
10. I find it exceedingly odd that YF, shortly after being created, would seek me out and cause so much disruption.
11. When this is closed, I would appreciate it if someone would suggest to YF that he not wikihound me. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not "wikihounding" you, and I did not "seek you out." You should retract these personal attacks. I started editing at the Fort Hood shooting article and that led me to Anwar al-Awlaki.

Please explain how telling the IP 98.204.201.79 that their edits were not vandalism -- which they were not -- constitutes "wikihounding" you.

What are "the statements that YF and an unknown IP in tandem were deleting"? I do not see any edits which are shared by myself and either of the IPs in question.

The IP deleted references, yes, but that is still a content dispute, not vandalism. ~YellowFives 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I stand by what I said above. Answers: 1) the IP e.g. blanked appropriate material w/out reason; I understand that to be vandalism; 2) following me to his page disruptively is wikihounding; 3) you and the IPs deleted appropriate material from same article. You clearly know I didn't violate 3RR above; therefore it may be less than civil for you to say I did. My suggestion is that in the future where either of us sees the other on a page, we seek to avoid the page. I think its time to cool jets.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• My point is that YellowFives deigned to call the four diffs reverts when he himself actually made four straight reverts. I believe Epeefleche's edit (4th diff) is not a revert in that it actually took account of YellowFives' concern, by citing the three sources. What synthesis is he complaining about? Three sources say he's a terrorist. Full stop. It's binary; there's nothing simpler and less synthetic than that. Properly cited and attributed, I don't see how there is any BLP violation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, my first edit was not a revert, it was just an edit. ~YellowFives 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the score is 3:2. You're still ahead ;-) And you didn't answer my question or address the points I made. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources "say he's a terrorist" and that is not even the content in dispute. To my knowledge not even Epeefleche is asserting that he's a terrorist. But the content of the article is not the discussion here. This board is only about the act of edit warring. ~YellowFives 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Retraction: I see Ohconfucius' point about the fourth revert not strictly being a revert. By that reasoning, Epeefleche may not have broken 3RR. And I have taken the issue of the IP harassment and Twinkle abuse to WP:ANI. If admins would like to take this retraction to save themselves the trouble of determining 3RR, I will not complain. ~YellowFives 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Discussed at ANI. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ReligionScholar reported by Jeff3000 (talk) (Result: 31h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

People of the Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ReligionScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 02:11, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "the facts are presented and then the opinions are shown, it is placed in a proper format.")
2. 02:23, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327972869 by Warrior4321 (talk) absolutely NO references have been removed.")
3. 02:45, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327974095 by Warrior4321 (talk) ok only one was missed but you will have to look at the discussion page.")
4. 04:39, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327986655 by Warrior4321 (talk) see discussion")
5. 05:07, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327990693 by Warrior4321 (talk) see discussion, thanks")
6. 06:35, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "article put back in neutral form. if further vandalism occurs mods will neet to ban users who are continously vandalising article.")
7. 06:46, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 328000915 by Prodego (talk) just read this format and you will see that its completely neutral.")
8. 09:18, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "the definition was changed into something completely wrong based on original research and "opinion". have replaced it with the correct definition based on facts and have put opinions in seperate secti")
9. 10:20, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "citation already given directly from the quran in surah maidah see definition section. the quran is the highest source in islam, there is no secondary source that can be used as argument against it.")
10. 13:10, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 328021036 by Bjenks (talk) which is why another section was created for opinions.")
11. 14:40, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 328040157 by Warrior4321 (talk) undoing spam")
12. # 15:56, 26 November 2009 (edit summary: "i am not undoing but i am editing the page. that does not count as a revert right? i am changing the article to the previous neutral form and requesting a lock on article thanks.")

• Diff of warning: here

This editor was first reported as breaking 3RR about a week ago (see here), and the admin at that time decided to not block him, but pursue a more consultative attitude toward him since he was a new editor. Since that time, multiple editors, including the last admin, have very civilly tried to consult with the editor about what are constructive ways to edit, and what the policies are (both on the talk page, and his user talk page), but the user does not agree with them because they don't align with his notion of Truth (capital T). In the past 24 hours he has reverted the page 11 times, even after a second 3RR warning, and a pleading to play within the rules. —Jeff3000 (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See a discussion of a reform plan at User talk:ReligionScholar#Imminent sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result -- 31 hours for edit warring. No agreement could be reached on a reform plan. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mutbue reported by User:LaVidaLoca (Result: already blocked )

Page: Hayden Panettiere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mutbue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]
• 4th revert: [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
This editor has spent hours today trying to add a chart ranking for a song which did not chart. The editor has repeatedly returned the ranking, adding various "cites" which either are non-existent or do not support any mention of chart ranking. In addition, it appears, from the edit history, this is yet another new sock puppet of User:Xtinadbest who has taken dozens of new identities (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtinadbest, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtinadbest) but edits the same block of articles. This user does not respond to postings nor talk page requests. Most importantly, the song did not chart. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• had been blocked indef already when I looked at this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Math.geek3.1415926 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 12 hours)

Page: Climatic Research Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Math.geek3.1415926 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] In this diff, user shows awareness of 3RR rules. Subsequent warnings [51] have brought no change in behaviour.

Note: this diff [52] asserts the user is up to 7R on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Certainly the user is inserting exactly the same material there [53].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see user talk page. Article talk page is "busy".

Comments:

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to refer to my contributions as simple reversions. Each of my subsequent edits adressed issues raised during the discussion: references were improved, wording was changed, etc. The talk page discussions indicate that the editors objecting to my edits have clearly missed that the references were improved per the prior discussion.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• 12 hours Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Duchamps comb reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 31h)

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Duchamps comb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [54] (edit comment: "readd")
• 2nd revert: [55], reinserts climategate link, reverts [56]
• 3rd revert: [57] (same revert)
• 4th revert: [58] (reverts [59])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Long term user, already familiar with 3RR [60].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The article talk page is quite "busy". The user has been discussing stuff there [61] but it hasn't helped.

Comments:

Those aren't all, just a sample William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• [62] My comment here stoaked the fire.

• [63] William M. Connolley was asked/warned to step away from the article due to WP:COI as some of his emails were part of those hacked.

• [64] Warned for editwaring on the article here.

• [65] [66] Reported for 3RR

• From the above it becomes easy to see William M. Connolley's bias, conflict of interest, whitewashing, and Edit warring.

• As far as my actions technically I think I'm guilty. I promise to leave the article alone for the next 24hrs. However my edits were in good faith, I tried to use the talk page often. I mostly tried to be bold by saving refs, add a redirect (which was nominated for speedy deletion and gone before I got a chance to develop it), and change verbiage here and there. I did not even really get involved too much with overall content. I did stick to my guns with the MSM dubbing the event "climategate".--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The misleading summary and personal attacks made by Duchamps_comb above should be taken into account by the closing admin. None of WMCs emails are involved, he is mentioned peripherally, and has no clear CoI. He was found not to have broken 3RR in the reports due to removing clearly BLP infringing material. There is no evidence for the slurs of "bias, conflict of interest, whitewashing, and Edit warring". Besides, none of these arguments are valid reasons for ignoring 3RR. Verbal chat 17:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Update an attempt to bate me to revert by removing "climategate" & ref [67]--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• 31h Not only a 3RR block, although that is an issue, more a generally disruptive editing block, including inserting negative material sourced only to blogs, for exampple. Black Kite 20:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Duchamps comb (Result: I think not)

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: User:William M. Connolley

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert:[68] removed term (re-rm climategate)
• 2nd revert: [69] (same revert) re-rm climategate; re-rm meaningless "statistical data"
• 3rd revert: [70] removed the word forgery with ref
• 4th revert: [71] removed FOIA requests and ref

• For any additional information or please see previous report.

Comments:

Nice try, but note that edits 1 and 4 are contiguous so count as one. It is curious that you just "happened" to place those first and last, to make this less obvious - someone more suspicious might wonder if you're being entirely honest William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No vio someone even more suspicious might think this is disruptive. Black Kite 19:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:92.247.238.43 reported by User:Anothroskon (Result: No vio)

Page: Saints Cyril and Methodius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 92.247.238.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:

No vio of 3RR yet but edit warrior mentality and off colour language on second edit. --Anothroskon (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• No vio as you say, but worth taking elsewhere if this continues. Black Kite 19:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Igorwindsor reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24 h)

Page: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Igorwindsor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

• 1st revert: [79]
• 2nd revert: [80]
• 3rd revert: [81]
• 4th revert: [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Australian territories

Comments:

24 h. Also edit warring elsewhere, so longer would probably be merited if behaviour continues. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by User:Riverpa (Result: no vio)

Page: Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Constant Reversions, Edit warring and Ownership of the page. WLU has some interesting interpretations of WP policies., such as ""The fact that there is so much criticism and skepticism about bioidenticals means the article should be both critical and skeptical" which I tried to address with him on the Talk page here [[84]]

He indicates his Ownership, after acknowledging that there is a valid minority viewpoint here that he should accommodate [[85]] he indicates that he will be the one to make the editorial changes.

[revert] - First revert - I did a clean-up on the lede, also I changed location of a paragraph - he did just a straight revert, and listed some reasons on the Talk page.

[revert] - Second revert - I revised the changes that I had previously done so they incorporated the points he had raised in his objections, even though I did not agree with them, to provide a compromise. I noted that on the Talk page. He reversed it again here.

[revert] Third revert - continues to insist that a paragraph heading "Lack of evidence for claims" is not POV when Style clearly states not to make a conclusion in the para headings, he reverted here when I changed it to Evidence for claims.

These two reverts [[86]] [[87]] (I guess these are still 3rd revert since no intervening edit was done) - manage to again change the text to show that the WHI was a study about hormone treatment for menopausal symptoms, which is untrue. WHI was a study to support use of hormone therapy for coronary heart disease, and possibly other chronic diseases.

Excerpt from the Conclusions of the abstract "The risk-benefit profile found in this trial is not consistent with the requirements for a viable intervention for primary prevention of chronic diseases, and the results indicate that this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD."

[revert] Fourth revert - same topic

WLU has taken virtual control of this article over a period of months, skirting the edges of 3RR, and rejecting other editors when they attempt to introduce any neutrality into the article. Any changes made by other editors are revised over a period of days to a version that is in keeping with his POV. He will not engage in trying to reach consensus, rather he argues the same POV over and over.

His writing style is not particularly graceful, yet even when I change the grammar, spelling, and try to bring areas into compliance with WP:Style without significantly changing content, he still reverts back to his version, such as here [[88]]. He refuses to allow the inclusion of any quotes from sources, no matter how brief: [[89]] insisting on re-phrasing to better reflect his POV.

His treatment of me has been WP:Bitey and WP:Pointy from the day I joined Wiki. He has removed POV tags on the article multiple times[[90]] [[91]] without any attempt to bring the article to a more neutral point, and without any explanation other than his WP:Truth.

While he is quick to change or delete my entries and those of other editors, he makes it known here [[92]] that "If three other editors revert my changes, I stop making them and discuss on the talk page", indicating that he is unwilling to come to a consensus unless he is outnumbered 3 to 1, by editors assertive enough to do a delete of his contribution.

Also, has a hard time keeping terms straight - estriol becomes estrogen, progesterone becomes progestin, skeptical becomes critical, championing becomes "intense promotion', and "stimulates breast cancer cell growth" becomes "leading to breast cancer". These are significant differences in this discussion, yet he continues to re-introduce them even when they are corrected and documented as not properly reflecting the source. Riverpa (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• No violation of 3RR and this is a content dispute which should be dealt with via disupte resolution. Black Kite 10:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite reported by User:Jimsteele9999 (Result: Article protected)

Page: A Perfect Day for Bananafish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[93] Previous version reverted to: [94]

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]
• 4th revert: [98]
• 5th revert: [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments:

I think it's best we nip this in the bud. In fact, I may be guilty of 3RR too but at least there's a record of my work on the talk page. Isn't that where we're supposed to start? And the edit summaries are so poorly written I can't follow his logic, I just see insults. The article needs help, and this edit war isn't helping at all!

Jim Steele (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned both editors that it would be logical to block both. (Why do people come here who are already over 3RR themselves?) I'm hoping that we will see promises of improvement. If not, the inevitable may follow. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, where to begin? My intention, throughout all of my edits, both to this article, and other articles related to J. D. Salinger and the Glass family, is to remove what I viewed as uncited opinions. Mr. Steele has claimed numerous times that the interpretations and analysis he has added to these articles is backed up by sources, so I have asked that said sources be provided, and that they be quoted, not paraphrased or summarized. Some examples:

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]

Some of the diffs provided above by Mr. Steele are inaccurate in that they skip over edits I made which were rewrites, format fixes to titles and refs, etc., edits which improved the readability of the article. Indeed, many of the diffs he provides are not reverts, per se, but substantial rewrites which, yes, removed information, but never without an explanation, i.e., that the information added was uncited. In fact, Mr. Steele made reverts which reinserted bad links, badly formatted references, repetitive information, analysis with no references, and details he said were "important" without quoting anyone who said why:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]

Now, this edit [108] was a mistake on my part, an edit made in a fit of pique, which I regret.

And how about some of the personal comments made by the user in regard to me, like "I mean, if this is how you express yourself via the written word, and you consider yourself a 'writer' I'm glad, very glad you live very far away!" [109] That was, to say the least, totally uncalled for. Indeed, the very first comment he ever made to me was the following: "Are you at all familiar with Salinger's works?" [110] I took this as a clever way of implying that he believes I am not, thereby implying that my edits to said articles are unwelcome. And there are others: [111], [112], [113] My reticence to engage with the editor on the talk page arose, in part, from the fact that he could not seem to stop making these sorts of comments.

In closing, I will not claim that my behavior has been saintly, and it is possible that an earlier discussion could possibly have avoided this idiotic back-and-forth, but I believe the diffs show that my intention was to seek references for the editor's claims, not merely to revert to my preferred version of the article. I am more than happy to see the articles in question expanded and improved, but they are not improved by simply adding opinions and/or analysis that is unsourced. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey. I'm glad to see the article now has an analysis section, and I know there's more to be done. That is one of my intents in editing the article. Thankfully, there are some good critical interpretations of this story. I've included some. There will be more to follow. I'd also expect a more experienced editor, who has violated 3RR in the past to exercise some restraint. Then again, the user has self-referenced to his anger in various posts, as well as a posting saying he "didn't give a shit." All I asked, initially was if he was at all familar with Salinger works? I've asked it before, and get a multitude of responses including: not really, I just like Catcher. Or, I find his Glass stories great but haven't read them all. I wanted something to start with. Well, that didn't work. All I can follow are comments embedded in his edit histories, and no, they don't all pertain to lack of references. I'm happy with whatever decision is made, and will continue to edit/expand pages, as it's great to to see an article expand before my eyes!

Jim Steele (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst the correct course of action should really be to block both editors', I have instead protected the article for three days, during which both editors should attempt to come to a mutually acceptable version by engaging on the talkpage. If edit-warring re-occurs after the protection expires, then blocking will be used. Black Kite 10:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:66.56.16.251 reported by User:Mason.Jones (Result: No vio)

Page: Sandy Springs, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 66.56.16.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Link: Sandy Springs, Georgia: discussion Actual "Discussion" text copied as follows

As a native Georgian, I realize there's some competition among Georgia's 2nd- and 3rd-tier cities. Some people wish to inflate the population of their hometown. But where do these figures raising Sandy Springs' population to over 100,000 come from? According to the 2008 population estimates (released just this year), Sandy Springs has 82,674 people and is the 8th-largest city in the state, not the 6th-largest. The US Census estimate (2008 is the last one before the official census of 2010) is the only figure used in encyclopedias, including Wikipedia--no others are considered valid.Mason.Jones (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this "estimate"...which, by the way, is very likely an UNDERestimate?76.17.118.157 (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no underestimate. I believe that the 100,000 figure for Sandy Springs was erroneously taken from preliminary statistical "spreads" that were not populations and that were not final. The final 2008 estimate of 82,674 was just released by the Census Bureau on July 1 of this year. The exact link is: http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2008-04-13.xls Mason.Jones (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC) [diff]

Comments:

Unidentified user constantly inflates latest official US Census Bureau population of Sandy Springs, GA from 82,674, eighth-largest city in Georgia, third-largest city in the Atlanta metro area) to different figures ("100,000 or 101,000", "sixth-largest" city in state, "second-largest" city in Atlanta metro area), which is mendacious and outright vandalism. His/her changes appear where the population is mentioned at three points in the article (in the info box, in first paragraph of article, and in "Population History" section toward end of article). Can these become protected fields for a time or is my daily monitoring/changing the proper solution? Will do this if it's the current policy. Thanks for your advice.Mason.Jones (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• No vio Three of the four edits were contiguous, so nothing to do here. If edits are vandalism they should be reverted and the editor reported at WP:AIV. Black Kite 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:StephenTech reported by Falcon8765 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Flash Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). StephenTech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

• Diff of warning: here

—Falcon8765 (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Tillman reported by Cardamon (talk) (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on November 27-28, 2009

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tine reported: 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC The following reversions of different edits on a rapidly changing page. So, they don't all revert to the same version. But, they are all clearly reversions. The 2nd and 3rd revsions are almost the same reversion.

1) 21:16, 27 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Hacked and leaked documents */ sub "unauthorized release" & leak for NPOV, see talk") This is a reversion of this edit by ChrisO: [114].

2) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* See also */ restore FOI section, see talk") Reversion of this edit by Tony Sidaway: [115].

3) 23:37, 27 November 2009 (edit summary: "Restore -- see talk. Comment there, please. Science Insider is clearly a RS,") Reversion of this edit by Itsmejudith: [116].

4) 02:20, 28 November 2009 (edit summary: "bold by convention, alt. name") This reverts the following edit by me: [117]

• Diff of warning by KimDabelsteinPetersen here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: These are numerous and include, to his credit, some by Tillman himself.

—Cardamon (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

KDP has since struck his complaint, see diff. here. But I see from above that I seem to have lost track. I apologize -- this has become a very active article, and it's hard to get some editors to discuss this particular issue (among others) at talk. No disruption or edit-war intended. Also see BLP/N for another attempt to resolve this issue. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are two new reverts by Tillman:

5) This edit by Tillman 05:13, 28 November 2009 completely reverts this edit by Viriditas: [118].

6) Following 5), this edit by Tillman 05:22, 28 November 2009 is an almost complete revert of this edit by Viriditas: [119]. Cardamon (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is in a lot of flux. Even some of the regulars who should know better have been pushing the limits. Nothing significant here. Please move along. --GoRight (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:76.199.115.208 reported by User:Anaxamandra (Result: already blocked)

Page: Gabourey_Sidibe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 76.199.115.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [120]
• 2nd revert: [121]
• 3rd revert: [122]
• 4th revert: [123]

Note there are more from this user as well.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I have not as I suspect this is pure vandalism.

Comments:

Anaxamandra (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Already blocked for vandalism. Black Kite 10:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:TheSickBehemoth reported by User:Lykantrop (Result: 31 hours)

Page: The Red Chord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: TheSickBehemoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

• 1st revert: [126]
• 2nd revert: [127]
• 3rd revert: [128]
• 4th revert: [129]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131]

Comments:
Fillowing the WP:1RR I tried to explain the problem to the user, who after being unable to respond properly, repeatedly deleted the discussion from his talkpage as a spam ([132], [133]). After he confirmed that the discussion was over, he ignored my further attempt to discuss, my warnings and resumed reverting.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My notice that he has been reported on this page has been removed after one minute from his talkpage by himself ([134])--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NW (Talk) 20:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Xandar reported by User:Karanacs (Result: protected)

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Epczaw added unsourced text to the article [135]
• Eustress added a citation to a reliable source [136]
• Another editor modified this text to make it more NPOV [137]
• Xandar reverts all of the additional text [138]
• Haldraper reverts Xandar [139] with an edit summary asking Xandar to justify removal on talk
• Xandar removes text without talk page discussion [140]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit-warring is an ongoing problem at this page, and numerous warnings have been give. The latest was a few days ago. [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: has not happened.

Comments:

The edit-warring on this article must stop. Xandar may have a valid point in his removal of the text, but repeated reversions of cited information are not appropriate if no attempt has been made to discuss on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Article protected for one week. Editor warned to exercise due diligence and seek consensus on talk. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:71.22.227.188 reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: Semi)

Page: 2006 Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User Being Reported: 71.22.227.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

• 1st revert: [142]
• 2nd revert: [143]
• 3rd revert: [144]
• 4th revert: [145]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]

Comments:

The reverting party has no user ID just an IP address. I suspect he is socking using the IP address of 99.157.98.136 as the barrage of reverts by 71.22.227.188 was accompanied by similar reverts from 99.157.98.136. I asked 71.22.227.188 to take the issue to the discussion page but he did not take heed. The paragraph that 71.22.227.188 is reverting has been there since the summer after reaching consensus.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Both of those addresses show signs of being experienced editors, but they geolocate a few thousand miles from each other. There is no technical vio here, but I am going to leave this open in case someone thinks semi would be worthwhile, wants to open an SPI, or thinks discretionary sanctions are necessary at that article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The second, third and fourth reverts all occurred within 24hrs. This by itself warrants a sanction. In any event, Semi protection limiting edits exclusively to users with accounts is warranted here--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Semi. The IP 71.22.227.188 is repeatedly taking out a quote from Michael Totten. Its value can only be determined on the Talk page, but neither this IP nor his colleague 99.157.98.136 is participating on Talk. Due the Israel/Palestine sanctions we expect to see better than usual editor behavior on this set of articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Chhora reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: advised)

Page: Gujjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Chhora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

• 1st revert: [149]
• 2nd revert: [150]
• 3rd revert: [151]
• 4th revert: [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]

Comments:

I have tried to reason with this editor and tried to convince him not to delete references bu tag them.He either does not wish to or does not understand. I am very reluctant to ask for this action but I cannot see any other way.--Sikh-History 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Declined New editor advised in wikijargon - I cannot find where anyone mentions 3RR. They have had plenty of warnings, but those can come across as just one user warring with another. Recommend escalating short blocks if warring continues. Page protection looks unnecessary at the moment, but remains an option. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Darrenhusted reported by 67.223.237.90 (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (Result: user reminded)

This editor has been repeatedly reverting article changes for A Serious Man over the course of several weeks. He also makes changes to articles copying and pasting previous versions to hide revision behavior.

1. (cur) (prev) 18:42, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,157 bytes) (Undid revision 328848061 by Darrenhusted (talk) Please stop reverting this edit.) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 18:40, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,636 bytes) (Slowly for you, one last time. The Manual of Style for fiction.) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 18:39, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,157 bytes) (Undid revision 328847285 by Darrenhusted (talk) Darren: You've reverted this three times and have not provided a reason.) (undo)
4. (cur) (prev) 18:36, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) m (17,636 bytes) (Reverted edits by 67.223.237.90 (talk) to last version by Darrenhusted) (undo)
5. (cur) (prev) 18:35, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,157 bytes) (Undid revision 328846576 by Darrenhusted (talk) Unless you provide a substantive reason, I see no reason to revert this.) (undo)
6. (cur) (prev) 18:33, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,636 bytes) (Funny thing was I rollbacked you, then did a null edit to explain.) (undo)
7. (cur) (prev) 18:31, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (21,157 bytes) (There is no "Wikilawyering" going on here, but rather sticking to the MOS. The plot needs to stay short, the article not all about the plot. Stop bloating it up.) (undo)
8. (cur) (prev) 18:29, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,158 bytes) (Undid revision 328845591 by Darrenhusted (talk) Undoing a reversion done without merit or explanation) (undo)
9. (cur) (prev) 18:28, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) m (17,636 bytes) (Reverted edits by 67.223.237.90 (talk) to last version by Horkana) (undo)
10. (cur) (prev) 18:16, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,158 bytes) (m: heading) (undo)
11. (cur) (prev) 18:11, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,147 bytes) (→Plot: This amount of information is appropriate for this movie. Wikipedia cautions against "Wikilawyering". The previous plot treatment was terse to the point of being unhelpful to the reader.) (undo)
12. (cur) (prev) 18:01, 30 November 2009 Horkana (talk | contribs) (17,636 bytes) (→Reception: currently is nonsense in an encyclopedia, say exactly when or avoid the pointless time reference entirely, as it will only look dated when it is no longer currently now or recent) (undo)
13. (cur) (prev) 17:56, 30 November 2009 Horkana (talk | contribs) (17,620 bytes) (infobox. minutes not min. avoid unnecessary abbreviations, clarity is more important in an encyclopedia. needs an WP:ALT description) (undo)
14. (cur) (prev) 17:49, 30 November 2009 Mike R (talk | contribs) (17,553 bytes) (→Cast and characters) (undo)
15. (cur) (prev) 17:07, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,526 bytes) (Plots should be kept to a reasonable length and not be a scene by scene recounting. And the section is called "plot", not "plot summary".) (undo)
16. (cur) (prev) 16:06, 30 November 2009 97.116.145.197 (talk) (21,374 bytes) (Undid revision 328761369 by Geoff B (talk)) (undo)
17. (cur) (prev) 08:24, 30 November 2009 Geoff B (talk | contribs) (17,526 bytes) (rv bloat) (undo)
18. (cur) (prev) 07:39, 30 November 2009 97.116.148.134 (talk) (21,374 bytes) (→Plot: Adding some needed context to help the reader get a fuller sense of the plot.) (undo)
19. (cur) (prev) 03:26, 30 November 2009 Branfeld (talk | contribs) (17,526 bytes) (Added external link to Fred Melamed interview) (undo)
20. (cur) (prev) 21:17, 29 November 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m (17,409 bytes) (→Cast and characters: Date maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)
21. (cur) (prev) 18:54, 29 November 2009 65.30.187.45 (talk) (17,379 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
22. (cur) (prev) 05:15, 29 November 2009 Coolhound (talk | contribs) (17,379 bytes) (Removed repeat of Rotten Tomatoes ranking, changed to correct rank (86-->87), changed to correct number of reviews counted) (undo)
23. (cur) (prev) 01:12, 29 November 2009 Ajcl7693 (talk | contribs) (17,443 bytes) (Corrected Rotten Tomatoes rating.) (undo)
24. (cur) (prev) 01:09, 29 November 2009 98.169.0.223 (talk) (17,443 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
25. (cur) (prev) 09:28, 27 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) m (17,443 bytes) (Reverted edits by 98.169.0.223 (talk) to last version by Darrenhusted) (undo)
26. (cur) (prev) 04:19, 27 November 2009 98.169.0.223 (talk) (17,443 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
27. (cur) (prev) 23:53, 26 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,443 bytes) (second Job reference) (undo)
28. (cur) (prev) 21:02, 25 November 2009 Luckas-bot (talk | contribs) m (17,220 bytes) (robot Adding: fi:A Serious Man) (undo)
29. (cur) (prev) 05:39, 25 November 2009 Anders.Warga (talk | contribs) (17,199 bytes) (wklk NIPP (red) & other terms, reform citation now archived) (undo)
30. (cur) (prev) 04:44, 25 November 2009 Anders.Warga (talk | contribs) m (17,175 bytes) (→Plot: add wklks, fix typo) (undo)
31. (cur) (prev) 22:21, 24 November 2009 64.60.55.20 (talk) (17,084 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
32. (cur) (prev) 22:19, 24 November 2009 64.60.55.20 (talk) (17,067 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
33. (cur) (prev) 11:57, 24 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,052 bytes) (Actually I have heard several critics reference Job. And that has a reference.) (undo)
34. (cur) (prev) 09:27, 24 November 2009 Bww23 (talk | contribs) (16,622 bytes) (Took out inaccurate claim that movie is a retelling of the story of Job (one reviewer compared the movie to the story of Job but there's no other reason to believe that it is)) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
35. (cur) (prev) 19:00, 23 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,068 bytes) (→Plot: the prologue is superfluous, the letters are a gag and have no impact on the plot. Go to the article talk page before bloating this back up again.) (undo)
36. (cur) (prev) 18:37, 23 November 2009 97.116.142.212 (talk) (18,925 bytes) (undo)
37. (cur) (prev) 18:36, 23 November 2009 97.116.142.212 (talk) (18,915 bytes) (Undid revision 327494334 by Darrenhusted (talk) See Talk page, Darrenhusted. Good editors are collaborative editors.) (undo)
38. (cur) (prev) 16:55, 23 November 2009 Gourneau (talk | contribs) m (16,973 bytes) (updated film gross) (undo)
39. (cur) (prev) 16:33, 23 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (16,973 bytes) (Plot guidelines say that the summary should be between 400-700 words, and should not be the focus of the article. The prologue has no outcome to the rest of the plot.) (undo)
40. (cur) (prev) 16:14, 23 November 2009 97.116.148.118 (talk) (18,915 bytes) (→Plot: You better start providing a substantive reason for so zealously trying to remove crucial plot information, other than your personal concept of 'bloat'.) (undo)
41. (cur) (prev) 14:59, 23 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (16,973 bytes) (→Plot: trim the bloat) (undo)
42. (cur) (prev) 14:57, 23 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) m (17,909 bytes) (Reverted edits by 97.116.142.208 (talk) to last version by Hl) (undo)

Warned Overzealous content dispute, cautioned by Wuhwuzdat. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:WVBluefield (Result: Page protected / No violation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Michael E. Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155]

• 1st revert: [156]
• 2nd revert: [157]
• 3rd revert: [158]
• 4th revert: [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161] I would like to add that WMC never once went to the talk page, while those who did want the material included went there repeatedly.

Comments:

Edit warring by WMC on climate related articles has become commonplace, and William M. Connolley has a professional WP:COI with this subject. A lengthy block would be advisable. WVBluefield (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like part of an edit war where WVBluefield has been a main participant and was blocked on the 21st for edit warring on this page. He's avoided literal 3RR problems since then, but I'd say block both of them or neither. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

But unlike WMC, I decided to actually use the talk page. The fact that several editors have banded together to block inclusion of relevant and well sourced material into an article should be enough to invite intervention. WVBluefield (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 No action taken; WMC has not broken 3RR, and if anything, it is you who is edit warring the most on that page. I will watchlist that page and intervene if the edit warring gets out of hand. NW (Talk) 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. WVBluefield (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I just looked it over again and saw that you were correct in your report to my talk page. I had misread the timestamps from late 29 November. I'll leave this for another sysop to handle. NW (Talk) 21:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c) Technically it was a 3RR violation, but because Connolley reverted 3 different changes in a 24 hour period over two days, he might not have realized he was close. And the "gotcha" attitude displayed by the reporting editor, who edit wars but doesn't cross the 3RR line, rubs the wrong way. Better idea: I suggest that an admin full protect Michael E. Mann for a couple of weeks; recent history seems to consist mainly of half a dozen to a dozen people reverting each other continually. Maybe see if dealing with the {{editprotected}} template for a while helps? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I’m not playing gotcha games, WMC has edit warred across multiple articles and will not, in most cases, even discuss changes to the article’s talk page. Furthermore, the edit was legitimate, and well sourced and WMC has a clear COI on this particular subject. If some editors are allowed to operate outside the rules then what good are the policies? WVBluefield (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sure you're not. Anyways, [162] qualifies for BLP (unreliably sourced negative information in a BLP), and your reverts not only reinsert sock material, but also are not quite true to the (primary) source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• The page is Already protected. by another admin, which renders further discussion here mostly moot. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The 3RR report is invalid anyway, because two of WMCs reversions were removing material inserted by a Scibaby sleeper sock (User:Farnshon). WP:3RR#Exceptions clearly indicates that reversions of material inserted by banned users are exempt from 3RR. Black Kite 22:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Farnshon made one edit to the article, and it was reverted by TS, not WMC so your reasoning appears to be invalid. WVBluefield (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
      • And then you re-introduced the material - twice - despite being told it was inserted by a banned sock. There is no way that any admin is going to block for that given the gaming, socking and general tendentiousness over these articles at the moment. This matter needs to go to WP:DR if anywhere. Black Kite 22:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• An admin might want to fix the template at the top of the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Black Kite 22:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks. Chrome crashed on me while I was putting the template on. I should have come back to it but got distracted. Dougweller (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't realise I was at 4R, or close to it. Apologies. I retrospectively claim BLP exemption, whilst realising that I should have clearly claimed it in advance. Context is required here: this is part of an unfolding media circus (see the protected-due-to-edit-warring Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident for more. This looks distinctly like "gotcha" by WVB, who (along with a while pile of socks, anon, and misc global warming skeptics) is shamelessly pushing this circus onto wiki. This is news, which we shouldn't be reporting in this way (if at all) until what exactly is going on becomes much clearer. To be explicit: WVB has no interest in this other than smearing Mann. If he had any interest in balance he would have added Mann's own statements on this issue. But he has no interest in balance William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You justify the removal of sourced relevant material by “ retrospectively claim(ing) BLP exemption”. Funny, I didn’t see that in any of the edit summaries or on the talk page, it almost sounds like you are using BLP to exclude well sourced material. While the unfolding "media circus" might indeed be best defined as a "media circus" that would only seem to add to the notability of the material. I also didn’t see you address your clear COI with this subject. WVBluefield (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Again, since the page has been protected, further discussion here is pointless. The report has been handled. This isn't a venue for back-and-forth argument. Larger issues with specific editors should go through dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn’t about WP:DR, its about WP:TE and wp:coi, and apparently no administrators have the stomach to do whats right when a prominent editor is involved. WVBluefield (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 48 h)

Page: Naomi Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [163] reverting out a defense of a book review critical of Klein.
• 2nd revert: [164] reverting back in Klein's critique of her critics.
• 3rd revert: [165] Reverted out a defense of Klein's critics.
• 4th revert: [166] Reverted out a defense of Klein's critics.

This is a slightly complex case, in that different bits editors are adding in Lulu is reverting out, all tending towards creating a more positive image of Klein. By my count, the four reverts have happened within three hours of each other.

Diff of multiple 3RR warnings: [167] And block log with numerous 3rr vios.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:

As I say, I'm not planning on making any edits regarding this material without discussion, and am done editing for the day, but it will be difficult to have that discussion while one party is engaged in a 3rr vio. One last plea: these reports are a pain to generate. Some admins seem to get frustrated with having to follow slightly complex reverting of different bits of material and shrug these reports off. I would be grateful if whoever handles this was willing and able to do follow the reversions (not that complex, honest). IronDuke 05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 05:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Trilemma reported by User:Scientus (Result: No block )

Page: Alan Grayson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Trilemma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [169]

• 1st revert: [170]
• 2nd revert: [171]
• 3rd revert: [172]

I subbmit here with 3 reverts as Trilemma has edit warred over this issue previously. Despite a previous consensus [173], and having said that having the study in the article was "not an issue" [174] Trilemma is not trying to revert it out. Trilemma does this without giving a single reason or argument, and even claims that the position being moved to is the consensus, with no evidence to support that contention

Trilemma seems to have a penchant for calling the kettle black to try to evade reasonable discussion. [175] [176] Then shouting THIEF by trying to mirror criticism, attempting to deflect attention. [177] [178]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179] [180]. Trilemma subsequently removed my comments, warnings: [181]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Previous consensus where Trilemma stated "not an issue"

Comments:

• While it seems like there is a bunch of edit warring on that page, Trilemma didn't violate 3rr, you only gave three reverts in a one week span. Also there isn't much discussion in the talk page between neutral parties. No block, but if revert warning starts again, I will fully protect the article. Secret ^account 13:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Sumbuddi reported by User:Scarian (Result:31 hours)

Blatant 3 Rv vio. on Peter Townshend.

• 1st Rv
• 2nd Rv
• 3rd Rv
• Warning
• 4th Rv

Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, your second 'revert', is nothing of the kind.Sumbuddi (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I would welcome suggestions on how to deal with the content dispute on this page. I started a RFC before, following several years of dispute over how to handle Townshend's admission of accessing a child pornography website and his police caution for the same, but it was wrecked by a since indef-blocked sockpuppeteer, and there was basically no external input into the process. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The CU result of the SPI you're referring to actually mentions connected accounts. So unless you're saying there was MEATPUPPETRY involved, I don't know what puppeteer you're talking about (incessantly). --King Öomie 20:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Point is, I gave you a warning but you still made another revert. 3RR does not allow you to make three reverts. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked the reverting user(s) to comment in talk, and we're now having that conversation. End of story. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

in fact more than one other editor asked *you* to discuss the changes you were imposing – [182] and [183] – but you merely re-imposed your changes and directed them to the RFC that had closed on November 9th (which did not lead to consensus for the changes you're imposing). Sssoul (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a clear violation of 3rr, 31 hours. Secret ^account 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:TheBalance reported by User:Mr.Sakaki (Result:24 hours)

Page: Ford GT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: TheBalance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [184]

• 1st revert: [185] 18:43, 25 November 2009
• 2nd revert: [186] 02:04, 1 December 2009
• 3rd revert: [187] 05:01, 1 December 2009
• 4th revert: [188] 07:21, 1 December 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [190], [191], [192]

Comments:
I started this discussion on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard [193]. It was suggested this may belong on the 3RR noticeboard instead. But there are the other violations; WP:NPOV, WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:COPYVIO. By listing only the best recorded 1/4 mile performance figure violates NPOV especially since the test car was likely a specially prepped ringer making considerably more power than production models. Including "There is no need for performance stats from multiple sources. Please do not modify this list; It WILL be reverted." violates page ownership and the [194] source is a scanned magazine article and a copyright violation. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• While technically not a 3rr vio, his last edit, which confirmed that he will keep on reverting those changes, plus his refusal to compromise dispite warnings made me block. 24 hours Secret ^account 13:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Still an ongoing edit war.

• 5th revert: [195] 04:26, 4 December 2009

Again TheBalance is removing the additional Motor Trend 1/4 mile figures to only include the very best time tested by a major US auto magazine. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I opened this discussion again on the main noticeboard [196] Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

TheBalance has been blocked for 48 hours (see main noticeboard), I readded the other two Motor Trend 1/4 mile performance figures. [197] Thanks Mr.Sakaki (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:MariAna Mimi reported by User:80.47.79.135 (Result: 31h and protection)

Page: Reality Killed the Video Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MariAna Mimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [198]

• 1st revert: [199]
• 2nd revert: [200]
• 3rd revert: [201]
• 4th revert: [202]
• 5th revert: [203]
• 6th revert: [204]
• 7th revert: [205]

• 1st Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206] (includes warning about WP:CIVILITY also)
• 2nd Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207]

The user has a history of edit warring and removing/changing details without discussion (even in the edit summary). In the past 24 hours s/he has made 7 reverts to this article alone, despite adequate rationale being given for the edits she insists on changing/deleting (I have only listed the 3RR edits for the past 24 hours, but if you look at the edit history for the article page, you will see that s/he has been doing this for far longer). User has not responded in any way to warnings left on their talk page, and since August (but particularly in the past month) there have been multiple warnings and requests for him/her to stop edit-warring on various articles. It's clearly a case of "fan worship gone mad" on the most part (i.e. the user edits articles of subjects that s/he is a fan of and insists on only using details that put the subject in a good light). The user also has a questionable command of english language, which further exacerbates the problems with their edits. S/he has also been quite rude to other editors (insulting them in his/her edit summaries, calling them "stupid", etc). Since the user has continued to edit war despite mulitple warnings, I feel that a block should be implemented in order to address the issue. 80.47.79.135 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours and page fully protected for 2 weeks to encourage discussion by both sides who seemed to get a bit carried away in the dispute. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Canadaman1960 and puppets reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result: 31h and semi)

Page: Kevin Trudeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Canadaman1960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and sockpuppets 220.137.59.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 121.116.40.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 122.18.227.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: It's complicated; see list of reversions below. Other (valid) edits have been inserted during the course of the editwarring. I have provided the disruptive editor/vandal's initial (identifiable) edit, so diffing that against immediately previous edit may give you what you are looking for here, although current version as of this writing (i.e. version that most recently removed reported editor's re-re-re-re-re-insertion of junk) is superior.

• Disputed material first inserted: diff (as .99)
• 1st revert: diff (as .235)
• 2nd revert: diff (as .235)
• Non-IP account created 3 min. later (Canadaman1960)
• 2nd revert continues 2 min. later, disguised as independent editing: diff (1st rv as Canadaman1960, 06:33, 1 December 2009)
• 3rd revert: diff (2nd as Canadaman1960)
• 4th revert: diff (3rd as Canadaman1960)
• 5th revert: diff (4th as Canadaman1960, at 03:05, 2 December 2009, within 24 hours)
• 6th revert: diff (as Canadaman, now past 24 hr mark, and reverting deletion of his even more excessive material, first posted as .99)
• 7th revert: diff (as Canadaman)
• 8th revert: diff (as Canadaman)
• 9th revert: diff (as new puppet .216)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk, user talk, user talk, edit summary, edit summary. All warnings have been ignored; user is simply escalating and expanding sockpuppetry.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff; see also related edit summaries and user talk posts, above.

Comments:

I've reported this to SPI as well, of course, and requested semi-protection for the article, to prevent this user being able to use IP puppets to continue the vandalism and POV-pushing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours and semi protection for BLP issues. I won't comment on socking, though I doubt an SPI investigation is truly needed from the edits I've checked (ie they are likely socks). Another admin may wish to extend this block and take further action, though this should help for now. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The autoblock is enabled, which should take care of IPs recently used by the editor. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:WVBluefield reported by User:Atmoz (Result: Protected)

Page: Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: WVBluefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [208]

• 1st revert: [209]
• 2nd revert: [210]
• 3rd revert: [211]
• 4th revert: [212]
• 5th revert: [213]
• 6th revert: [214]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A, user already blocked for 3rr

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A - user falsely claiming BLP exemption

Comments:

Comment Ugh .... I am not falsely claiming anything. The version Atmoz insists on having in the article contains two BLP issues. Criticisms that the film The Great Global Warming Swindle received are being inserted into the article since Lindzen was in the film for 45 seconds. All of the referenced sources that could be defined as reliable deal solely with the movie, and the sources which mix criticisms of both the move and Lindzen’s role in it are self published and blogs, and not WP:RS. Self published and blogs being used to add negative information on a subject is not allowed, and material not directly related to the subject, especially when critical, is also a violation of BLP.

This is a BLP issues, and my RV's do not count because of this. I have placed it on the appropriate forum for feedback if anyone cares to weigh in there.

I will be more than happy to stay off the article until some uninvolved editors weigh on over at WP:BLPN to settle this, but my edits were made in good faith to remove material that violates policy. WVBluefield (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

←I am an uninvolved editor who spotted this edit war while patrolling "RecentChanges". Both the reportee and the reporter have been edit warring, but neither has done so since I formally warned them about it a few minutes ago. I respectfully suggest that the investigating administrator either blocks both or neither, since this report can be viewed as an attempt to get the "upper hand" in a content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have protected the article for three days to stop the edit warring, but am leaving this discussion open if anybody would like to pursue it. Please be aware that the climate change topic area is currently "hot". - 2/0 (cont.) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would ask that since my very first block was for an issue that did indded turn out to be a WP:BLP violation as I claimed, I owudl ask that the reviewing admin please look closely at this. I was treated most unfairly once, and do not want to be treated liek that agains. Thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  I've just read through that old BLP/N topic again - and i fail to see any indications that it was a BLP violation - in fact just about everyone except Alex stated disbelief in any BLP issue there. (ie. i couldn't find anyone who agreed with Alex on that issue (correct me if i'm wrong)). So i'm rather surprised that you are using that particular incident as a precedent, and it doesn't really bring confidence to your claims about BLP issues. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. This appears to be a spurious claim by WVB William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one that has reverted W. See [215] and [216]. -Atmoz (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If an admin does decide to block me (which I don't think is warranted, but I may be a little biased), could you please also unblock immediately? I'd like to work on User:Atmoz/Eyewall replacement cycle today. I'll not edit anywhere besides that until the block is to expire. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Makrandjoshi reported by User:Wifione (Result: no vio)

Page: The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Makrandjoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Latest change by Makrandjoshi compared to Wifione's last edit: [217] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [218] [219]

My previous discussions with editors on POV issues [220]

Comments:
The user Makrand Joshi is simply deleting citations and references added after various discussions on the discussion forum and disregarding volumninous previous discussions amongst editors. Please help or advise me on what to do Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Wireless Fidelity Class One Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have justified all changes I am making in the edit-summary as well as on the talk page. References I am deleting are not WP:RS. user wifione is in the habit of forum shopping, when it comes to disagreements with me. and on every occasion, others on the forums have found him/her to be in the wrong. Note that here too, wifione has linked to no diffs. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Reporting user is arguably the more disruptive at that article, but also appears to be within the limits of normal editing-with-discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Pittpanther2004 reported by User:Crazypaco (Result: 24 h)

Page: Oakland Zoo (cheering section) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Pittpanther2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unsourced material first inserted here 16:11, 25 November 2009

• 1st revert: [221] 11:19, 30 November 2009
• 2nd revert: [222] 11:10, 1 December 2009
• 3rd revert: [223] 19:09, 1 December 2009
• 4th revert: [224] 12:32, 2 December 2009
• 5th revert:* [225] 00:58, 3 December 2009

* Identical edit made by IP 166.137.133.10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: various entries[226], [227], [228], [229]; see User talk:Pittpanther2004

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [230], [231]; see Talk:Oakland Zoo (cheering section)#Founders

Comments:

The edits of Pittpanther2004 were originally unsourced additions that seem to be in violation of, or in danger of violating, one or more of the following: WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:Vandalism, and/or WP:LIVE. The editor appeared to be a new user, and multiple attempts to engage the editor in a discussion, both on his talk page and in the article's discussion page, have not resulted in any replies. Pittpanther2004 has repeatedly removed source material, including additional source material added during the editing conflict, in order to repeatedly insert the identical version of his edit. I was hopeful to engage the editor in discussion about the article, but his continued silence, as well as the identical edits made by an IP (166.137.133.10), suggests that he has indeed received the messages left on the talk pages and may now be resorting to sock puppetry. To this end, I am no longer sure what recourse I have other than to bring this to the attention of the noticeboard. I would like additional advice about how this could be handled further, if need be, especially since I now suspect the editor is attempting to circumnavigate discussion about the article, or detection of his edits, by using an IP.

For information on the issues with his edits, please refer to the article's talk page where I have attempted to discuss it at length. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Slow motion edit warring without sources. If more IPs join in, it might be worth asking WP:RFPP to semi-protect the page for a while. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:209.213.220.109 reported by User:Bignole (Result: Blocked)

Page: Halloween (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bignole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Initial edit - which was reverted because it was extraneous details about the final minutes of the film as the credits roll, and did not have anything to do with the overall plot (per WP:MOSFILMS).

• 1st Revision as of 22:11, November 30, 2009
• 2nd Revision as of 23:51, November 30, 2009
• 3rd Revision as of 00:03, December 1, 2009
• 4th Revision as of 23:36, December 1, 2009
• 5th Revision as of 14:25, December 2, 2009
• 6th Revision as of 14:35, December 2, 2009
• 7th Revision as of 19:52, December 2, 2009
  • Official explanation (in case IP hasn't seen the edit summaries), along with official warning about breaking the 3RR and the consequences of doing it again at 21:24, December 2, 2009
• 8th Current revision as of 23:51, December 2, 2009

Comments

Based on the IPs talk page, it appears that they have a history of disruptive, nonconstructive edits. The official warning about the 3RR did not come until really late, but the two hour time difference between the warning and the next revert shows that the IP completely disregarded what was said and acted anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 3 months for continued record of disruption and vandalism, including recent edit warring. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Thestreamer reported by User:Kww (Result: 24 hours)

Page: She Wolf (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Thestreamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2 dec 2009 20:31

• 1st revert: 3 dec 2009 10:54
• 2nd revert: 3 dec 2009 14:37
• 3rd revert: 3 dec 2009 15:53
• 4th revert: 3 dec 2009 16:02
• 5th revert: 3 dec 2009 16:09
• 6th revert: 3 dec 2009 16:22

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WT:Record charts and Thestreamer's talk page

Comments:

Thestreamer did make one adjustment to his material in response to my comments, but has continued to edit war with Lil-Unique and Europe22.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment considering that I too have been tryign to resolve edits with Thestreamer. The user has been given many opportunities to discuss why he/she should not be adding such content. He/she was also asked to start using the talk pages to discuss additions of information. user's own talk page is full of warnings and interventions from several different editors. Since November 21 (12 days of edit warring) the user has been adding inappropriate content to the article. He/she refuses to seek consensus for change and refuses to acknowledge rule pages such as WP:record charts. He/she also doesnt not speak to other users in an appropriate manner (see my own talk page to see comments left by him/her under the section RE: Single Certifications). — {Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)}

24 hours Secret ^account 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmuldrow reported by User:bonewah (Result: Both parties warned)

Page: Political positions of Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jimmuldrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [233]

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff

There are maybe like 12 other examples of this over the last several months[234].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235] This warning was removed [236]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff And another editor tried to do the same: diff
Comments:
This article is on probation Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation a fact I pointed out when I warned him on his talk page. But despite this, Jimmuldrow's reponse was to hurl insults and avoid the concerns of other editors diff [237]. Jimmuldrew refuses to address the main contention of these edits, OR and undue weight: diff, despite the fact that he agreed not to add this material again diff and agreed to a proposed edit war solution diff. This is just the latest in a pattern of disruptive behavior. Jimmuldrew constantly refuses to get the point. Consider my comments: [238] vs his replys: [239] [240] [241] [242] his responses are equal measure incoherent and insulting. Im not the only one, he is abusive to other editors as well [243]. Attempts to reach a compromise seem to be futile, as described above, jimmuldew agrees to a solution only to simply revert the changes a week or two later. Bonewah (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• You've each made 3 reverts in the past couple of days, without any discussion that I can see and in most cases without even an edit summary. I don't see a formal 3RR violation and I'm not going to block either of you right now, but you both need to start discussing. If it's truly a case of one editor ignoring consensus, then involve some additional editors, because right now it's a back-and-forth 2-person edit-war, and if it continues in the current vein then you'll likely both end up blocked or restricted. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Its more than just me, user:Adavidb has also reverted him, requesting discussion diff diff Diff. Additionally, I started a discussion here and participated in the discussion started by user:Sbowers3 here. My previous edit summaries were ignored see [244] which happened on the 23 of november he then proceeded to revert 11 more times despite edit summaries requesting discussion, see here here by adavidb, and again here, there are more than that. This is not simply a case of two editors not talking to one another. As for consensus, this whole section is an attempt at compromise, would you say that jimmuldrew's contribution to that discussion is helpful? I dont think it is. Bonewah (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Many of Bonwah's comments are selective and misleading. I won't get in to all the details. Bonwah said that WP:NPOV is the work of a "sophist", but it encourages adding more than one point of view, with more weight given to the most widely accepted point of view, with good references. TIME, Politifact, The Washington Post and many other reliable references indicate that there are not likely to be any death panels in current health care legislation, and this should be mentioned in the article.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It would appear that someone checked the facts when Bonewah claimed that he thinks no one should ever edit war. Thanks, MastCell.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:LVAustrian reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 24 hours)

Page: RealClimate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: LVAustrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [245] (reverts [246]; this isn't the first rv though, e.g. [247])
• 2nd revert: [248] (reverts [249])
• 3rd revert: [250] (rv prev)
• 4th revert: [251] (rv prev)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [252]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See editor's and article talk pages.

Comments:

User contributions are little other than reverts on this article. Might be a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Essencelovedavid and sockpuppets reported by User:BullRangifer (Result: blocked)

Page: Holistic health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Essencelovedavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [253]

• 1st revert: [254]
• 2nd revert: [255]
• 3rd revert: [256]
• 4th revert: [257]
• 5th revert: [258]
• 6th revert: [259]
• 7th revert: [260]
• 8th revert: [261]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [262]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [263]

Comments:

SPA editor refuses to discuss or use talk pages, adds unsourced material, places it in the completely wrong place, fails to heed advice, edit wars, and thus exhibits completely uncollaborative behavior. Regardless of the worth or unworth of their edits, failure to use talk pages and thus collaborate is unacceptable.

Note that this editor is likely the same person who has previously made these types of edits on that page:

• Essencedavid3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Essence333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.192.218.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.145.54.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests:

• I request that a CU be run on this disruptive person

• I request that the website they are spamming be blacklisted. This may help to reduce their motivation to continue such activities.

Brangifer (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they are being disruptive, but I've been recently involved in the article so won't block myself. Fences&Windows 01:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Then someone else needs to do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He's still at it and nothing is being done. Please, no more warnings! Just block him. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. The other accounts appear abandoned and I think are too old for CU, but I will look into blacklisting that site. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Taluchen reported by SchmuckyTheCat (talk) (Result: cautioned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Taluchen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 19:30, 2 December 2009 (edit summary: "proper noun form is more appropriate")
2. 00:16, 3 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 329341391 by SchmuckyTheCat just because a proper noun makes sense uncapitalized does not mean it should be written that way")
3. 05:00, 3 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:02, 3 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 01:46, 4 December 2009 (edit summary: "clearly none of you speak English as a first language or can comprehend deep grammatical concepts")

I am fairly certain this is not a new user. They started quoting nuances of policy in their first edit. Note the last edit summary is almost insulting. This report is only about the desire to capitalize a non-proper noun despite discussion on the talk page. They are edit warring over other issues and will probably continue to do so. Nip this in the bud. —SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

While in technical terms your are correct, leaving a brief explanation on the talk page is always better than explaining through edit summaries. The user may not know about diffs, even if he/she has been contributing for awhile. ZooFari 03:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Warned - 2/0 (cont.) 18:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, not a technical violation, and seems interested in discussing productively. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dynablaster reported by User:Williamsburgland (Result: cautioned)

Page: Bowling for Columbine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Dynablaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments
It's important to note that this page was already protected in early October due to the exact same issue. The user waited a few weeks and then reverted again; if something is not done now the user will simply continue edit warring, as they did until a page protect too effect. The user has had similiar issues with other editors (see talk page) and has been accused of sock puppetry. I've undone this edit, the user then reverted again. I feel a consensus has been reached, I'd simply like an authority to ask him to stop editing. He was warned, removed the warning and added it to my page; I've since warned him again.Williamsburgland (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Links added to report. Investigating. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Warned Both users requested to seek outside input when they find themselves in a revert war with one other editor. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite reported by User:Fragma08 (Result: Declined)

Page: Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [264]
• 2nd revert: [265]
• 3rd revert: [266]
• 4th revert: [267]

Comments:

This user engaged in an edit war although being aware of the rules of reverting repeatedly. Wikipedia rules apply to all and are equal. So in an edit war, both parties are to be blocked, as the breach is the same. Anything else would be biased. It is evident, that this user knew the rules, as they have been reporting people for breaching the revert rules. Yet no action was taken, and no reports were made albeit they should have[268], indicating bias.

It should be noted that the article was not a coatrack at any point, but had gone from a full-fledged article to a stub that very day due to some editor having copy/pasted the biography from a website against copyright. When discovered the links and biography were removed [269]. So the stub article was only 6 minutes old, when accused by User:Hipocrite of being a coatrack, despite being made aware that it would take time to rebuild the article from scratch. The defamation point was also clearly invalid, as a person can not be defamed by his own statements, which was also pointed out by an admin [270].

Attempts to discuss the matter and reverts, were met by outright refusal to discuss [271] [272] while maintaining the coatrack and defamation claims. The user has been warned by other editors for his behavioural problems [273] [274] [], but stated he was "uninterested" [275].

When unwillingness to discuss the matter, while throwing out offensive acronyms (GTFO), behaving incivil, and making baseless claims, is combined with edit warring, this can not be of benefit to other editors or wikipedia.Fragma08 (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Declined This is stale and no warning was given. I note that Fragma08 has raised a complaint at ANI [276] which is more appropriate than a stale complaint such as this. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Rabka Uhalla reported by User:Nsk92 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Minaret controversy in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Rabka Uhalla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the case of active edit warring and likely active sockpuppetry rather than a typical 3RR case. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AntaineNZ for evidence of likely sockpuppetry against User:Rabka Uhalla. User:Rabka Uhalla is arguing for removal of the word controversy from the article and the title of the article Minaret controversy in Switzerland. The user insists on inserting and re-inserting these changes in the article[277][278][279][280], despite objections being raised to such changes at the article talk page and despite the obvious absense of consensus there for such changes. The same user has made a patently offensive and disruptive post[281] arguing that the best use of Quran is as toilet paper. IMO, the user is a fringe POV pusher and a sock intent on continuing edit-warring and continuing disruption of the article. I believe that a block is already warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [282]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Minaret controversy in Switzerland#How is this a controversy?

Comments:

• Indef blocked by Tznkai (talk · contribs), who cited "Disruptive editing: [283]". NW (Talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Paulozin and User:Picolotto reported by User:GiantSnowman (Result: 24h/Prot )

Page: Dagoberto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported:
Paulozin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Picolotto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm hopeful this is the right place for this; I'm not involved in this edit war, I'm just a neutral third-party who has stumbled upon an edit war on an article on my watchlist. I have previously advised (about a week ago) both editors to stop edit warring and start a discussion on the talk page; they failed to do so but the edit warring died down. However, a few days ago it flared up again, and has seen a ridiculous amount of reversions and counter-reversions in the past 48 hours. We need admin involvement ASAP; but be warned, both editors have Portuguese as a native tongue and, in previous interactions I have had with both of them, they just ignore any and all requests I make them. Thanks, GiantSnowman 22:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• 24h each and article protected, should hopefully make them interact in what is a very lame edit-war. Possibly. Black Kite 22:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Monkeyassault reported by User:Roman888 (Result: Protected)

Page: Najib Tun Razak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Monkeyassault (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2 dec 2009 20:31

• 1st revert: 12:02, 5 December 2009
• 2nd revert: 12:00, 5 December 2009
• 3rd revert: 06:24, 5 December 2009
• 4th revert: 06:22, 5 December 2009
• 5th revert: 02:39, 5 December 2009
• 6th revert: 02:34, 5 December 2009

• The individual has a history of removing whole sections of articles and has been warned several times as seen in his talk page -

- User talk:Monkeyassault. The individual did not even take the time and effort to discuss his recent removals but just gave vague reasons such coatrackings and biography policies. There have been no effort on his part to seek consensus on Wikipedia noticeboards. Also a discussion had been started regarding his removal of recent content, which he has not participated at all - Talk:Najib_Tun_Razak#Removal_Vs_Editing_down. His arguments currently are invalid as the information that has been provided currently are properly sourced and reference. This doesn't give the individual permission to delete whole sections. Roman888 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected NJA (t/c) 07:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dduff442 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 24 h)

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Dduff442 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [284]

• 1st revert: [285]
• 2nd revert: [286]
• 3rd revert: [287]
• 4th revert: [288] 2009-12-06T18:46:12

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [289] 2009-12-06T17:12:11

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Climatic_Research Unit e-mail_hacking_incident#Myron_Ebell

Comments:

Noob; means well, but won't listen. Needs a block (perhaps a short one) just to point out that the rules really do exist. This is a high-profile page only just off protection; it doesn't need this stuff at the moment William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Added a sourced remark to the article from an existing cite that had elicited no objections previously. Had it reverted. Initiated discussion then reworked phrasing to satisfy objector [290].

Remark again deleted by William M. Connolley *without* prior discussion. It should be noted that Mr Connolley is one of the subjects of the article in question (Search [291] for details), a fact he has acknowledged in his talk page. My contention is that this revert was invalid on conflict of interests grounds.

Re-inserted remark. A third objector surfaced claiming the quote wasn't supported by the source. My 2nd edit, i.e. "funded in part by energy companies", was in fact verbatim from the source ([292]). Re-inserted remark after this point was conceded[293].

Remark was again deleted by User: Arthur Rubin, yet again without prior notification or discussion.

After considering Revert_war and WP:3RR, felt justified in adding text to article once more as I felt the statement "Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting ... Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason." supported my point of view as I had deleted nothing and thrown out nothing. On the contrary, it was my sourced edit that was being deleted without any attempt at 'improvement'.

Re-added deleted text, adding comments to talk page. Awaiting response from user.

Quote was deleted once again by William M Connolley.

A direct quote from an existing cite has been deleted five times from the page in question *without prior discussion on any occasion*.

I have never before been involved in a dispute or arbitration on Wikipedia, and am not fixated on a single-issue unlike some of those who have deleted my sourced content without warning. In fact, IIRC, I have never edited a climate-related article before today.

These are the facts. I ask only that admins review the case with due care, evaluating William M Connolley's right to edit the article, and note the effort made to satisfy the objections by moving from my own phrasing to a direct quote from the source in question.

There is a simple issue of integrity at stake here -- the Post journalist recognised this, as do I. Mr Connolley has no objection to the inclusion of *parts* of the Washington Post article, but objects to others. I don't feel its reasonable to deny sourced information to readers.Dduff442 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There is no question that you did indeed violate WP:3RR. Since I'm somewhat embroiled in the topic, I'll leave it to another admin to come to a final result. However, trust me. You are in technical violation right now, and your best bet to avoid a block is recognize why and communicate that fact clearly. How other parties behave is irrelevant to this issue unless they violate WP:BLP or commit blatant vandalism. You have been reverted by three very experienced editors, one a current admin, with more than 14 years of on-wiki experience between them, and more than 100000 edits. Don't you think you should take their objections seriously? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 'consensus' against me has completely disappeared. Five times a sourced edit was deleted with complete contempt for the rules, eliciting no objection from the admins in any case. Neither was any voice raised against the personal attacks and gloating to which I was subject.

I was forced to defend charges of dishonesty (only retracted today) and edit-warring simultaneously in what was a travesty of due process, and blocked even though I deleted nothing, ceased editing, declared my intention to lodge an RfC and allowed Connolley's revert to stand.

All the signs are that the issue was judged on user prominence and credentials rather than on the facts. Connolley and Rubin gamed the system and won -- temporarily at least. I invite users to examine their contribs list to see how constructive they are. Deletion is a first resort for each.

I was BOLD and forthright, and certainly did add the exact same phrase three times. The phrase did not ultimately turn out to be controversial, however. The behaviour of my adversaries was disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. I take great satisfaction in my vindication.Dduff442 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Matthew_hk (Result: No violation)

Page: Dušan Kerkez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I'am saying there is lack of soucre stating his past career , but me and the user keep on reverting (that's my fault) national-football-teams.com is somewhat relibale on notable bih names and big 5 league (ESP, ITA, ENG etc), sometimes they appear 0 games for lack of information. (sometimes the site add non-exist career to the player, except he have twin or able to play for two club) It is sometimes or often for "weak" nation and internationals to provide fake information. and eufo.de is OFTEN not reliable. The user just don't listen and not provide an article for the player transfer, or a real biography to talk about his past career, but to trust a somewhat reliabe site. A provided a BIH FA, his current club profile, a Serbian football fans site, all lack of information for his past club.

No violation FkpCascais last edited on 2 December. You did not manage to show four reverts in a 24-hour period. Each party has been slowly reverting over a period of weeks. In future, please give the reasons for your edits on the article talk page or you won't find much sympathy here. If you think that bad sources are being used, ask for comments about the quality of the sources at WP:FOOTY. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hauskalainen reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hauskalainen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 19:56, 7 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 330297553 by NeilN (talk)rv ridiculous revert. Which element do you doubt??????")
2. 22:26, 7 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 330317815 by Gabbe (talk) This is a logical truism. It needs no reference")
3. 22:43, 7 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 330326459 by NeilN (talk)No it does not!!!!")
4. 23:03, 7 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 330332005 by Dave souza See comments at User_talk:NeilN")

—NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [294]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [295]

Comments: Basically refuses to provide a source.

• Result - Already blocked 48h by Gabbe. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Amerique reported by User:House1090 (Result: both warned)

Page: Inland Empire
User being reported: Amerique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [296]
• 2nd revert: [297]
• 3rd revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [298]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [299]

Comments:
I put it on the talk page and he ignored it and kept on reverting me. on the talk page it seems as if I am talking to mey self. The article is about a metropolitan area (msa) and this user is making it give the idea that it is a region, also I put in a better picture of the metro (its more clear), but User:Amerique keeps on reverting it. I think he thinks he is the owner of wiki.

• A cursory review of House's contribution list will reveal a history of edit warring across many articles against multiple users all attempting to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia against his attempts at Inland Empire/San Bernardino boosterism. House is more or less a SPA for (his understanding of) regional boosterism that I will be requesting a topic ban on at some point soon, per this prior discussion here. Amerique^dialectics 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok why were you edit warring with me? Your no better I have reverted you again,this will be my 3rd and final time, please discuss it in the talk page. Also Amerique is always revetring with out a reasonable explanation so if I get a topic banned then so do you. House1090 (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Closing ... result soon ... - 2/0 (cont.) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Warned There has been edit warring without 3RR violation, of which rule both users are well aware. The level of edit warring is not, however, intense enough or narrowly enough defined to warrant blocking either user based on this report. House1090 seems to make a great many edits which add information about the IE; this is great inasmuch as they all appear to be relevant articles, but there is a clear trend of writing (sometimes gracelessly) in the context of the IE rather than in the context of whichever article. See for instance this series of three edits to Coachella Valley. I caution that people reading such an article are more likely to be interested in the stated topic than in the greater region. Its place in that region is certainly relevant and it should be mentioned and linked, but at that article it is a subtopic - detail how IE bears on CV, not the other way around.

I recommend starting a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, as the relevant TaskForce may be too small to gather a broad spectrum of opinion about the issue. You might also start a request for comment requesting advice on the direction that article should take. Iff, following discussion at one or both of those venues, the issue remains unresolved, I recommend starting a topic ban discussion at AN/I. Please feel free to contact me at my talk page if you would like help or advice in setting up these discussions. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thread started at WT:CAL. House1090 still edit warring over his unique interpretation of the meaning of a Census Bureau term at [300], but with Polaron instead. Please don't take action against Polaron, as his efforts are improving that article in ridding it of House's misconceptions. Thank you, Amerique^dialectics 06:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protected by User:Tedder. Will be collating diffs tomorrow on House's sustained history of edit warring since being unbanned over a year ago. Will continue discussion on the article in the meantime. Amerique^dialectics 07:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Proofknow reported by User:Sinneed (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Human Rights Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Proofknow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [301]

• 1st revert: [302]
• 2nd revert: [303]
• 3rd revert: [304]
• 4th revert: [305]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [306] - edit summary... editor has requested I not post to his talk page, and I cautioned him that I would accept the restriction but that I would not be able to place last warnings on his talk page. Previously warned for edit warring here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [307].

Comments:

Per the user's request, I have not notified the user of this thread.

Proofknow previously sought interested editors at Requests for Editor Help board, but did not wait for help before resuming the edit war. Proofknow has opened an RfC, but editor does not accept consensus for the moment, and will not wait for RfC comments before continuing the edit war.- Sinneed 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

During the previous round of warring, I requested a full lock on the article in hopes of starting discussion. A partial block did seem to start a discussion, but it has been unfruitful.- Sinneed 00:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — Kralizec! (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:190.53.244.15 and User:Finrevs reported by User:Moogwrench (Result: stale)

Page: Manuel Zelaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported:
190.53.244.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Finrevs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

User:190.53.244.15

These are only five of the 10-15+ reverts this user has done in the last 24 hours:

• 1st revert: another editor's edit at 00:56 & revert by 190.53.244.15 at 1:57
• 2nd revert: another editor's edit at 04:10 & revert by 190.53.244.15 at 4:14
• 3rd revert: another editor's edit at 04:20 & revert by 190.53.244.15 at 4:22
• 4th revert: another editor's edit at 04:24 & revert by 190.53.244.15 at 4:26
• 5th revert: another editor's edit at 04:28 & revert by 190.53.244.15 at 4:37

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning at 00:35: [308]

---

User:Finrevs

This user has done less reverts than the other, but still did at least 5, not counting in the chain of reversions/counterreversions an edit by an IP user that might be the same user.

• 1st revert: another editor's edit at 04:22 & revert by Finrevs at 4:28
• 2nd revert: another editor's edit at 04:26 & revert by Finrevs at 4:51
• 3rd revert: another editor's edit at 04:53 & revert by Finrevs at 4:55
• 4th revert: another editor's edit at 04:37 & revert by Finrevs at 4:58
• 5th revert: another editor's edit at 02:58 & revert by Finrevs at 5:43

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning at 5:32: [309]

---

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not really a party to the dispute, though one of my edits was swept up in the war and I offered this comment on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

These guys have both been duking it out with each other and whoever runs across their path, especially the IP user, to the detriment of the article. Here is one section of the article talk that shows their back and forth. Moogwrench (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, considering edit/reverts like this one, User:190.53.244.15 might be a sockpuppet of User:Alb28, who is currently on BLP and ANI noticeboards for the same (see Financial irregularities during the Manuel Zelaya administration) or very closely related BLP issues. Moogwrench (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Closing; this is probably stale (sorry about that - this board does not always get the quick responses these days), but the article is still active and worth a look. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Stale Neither reported contributor has edited lately. While the content dispute is ongoing, there is sufficient talkpage discussion that I do not think it worth locking the article at this time; please post to Requests for page protection if any of this changes. There is also a thread at AN/I which seems to have attracted sufficient attention to deal with the surrounding issues. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:gersracing reported by jameselmo (Result: 24 h)

Page: The Cry of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: gersracing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

<don't know what diffs are? I'm reporting gersracing as he is continually reverting referenced material to the same blatant unreferenced self-promoting POV ie vandalism. He has also removed several of my attempts to talk to him from the discussion page - he didn't have a talk page for a while but I see it's back upJameselmo (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC) -->

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Not a technical violation, but also not convinced that user is WP:HERE. Reporting user cautioned. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:CasualObserver'48 reported by User:Breein1007 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Ghajar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: CasualObserver'48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [310]

• 1st revert: [311]
• 2nd revert: [312]
• 3rd revert: [313]
• 4th revert: [314]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [315]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [316]

Comments:
I have tried to explain to the user that the sentence he is so adamantly trying to include in the article is inappropriate, because it doesn't add any facts about the subject. It is a simple commentary, albeit sourced, that attempts to push POV, something that cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. He has ignored my explanation that the sentence is an inappropriate commentary, and put it back into the article multiple times. When I tried to explain to the user why the sentence should not be in the article, he responded with edit summaries such as "deal with it". Breein1007 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Warned Both warned to end the dispute. Any further reverts should result in a block of the editor for disruption. NJA (t/c) 07:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Other side reply Not wanting to continue the argument here, but certainly recognizing the reported events as an incident, which should include some admin result, I will add my diffs here. I do not see 3RR, but I do see a disruptive editor. User making the accusation: Breein1007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [317]

First disruption: [318]

Second disruption: [319], includes some edit summary

Third disruption: [320]

Fourth Disruption: [321]

Fifth Disruption: [322]

Continuing disruption: [323], [324], [325] and [326], which include edit summaries.

Diff of warning: [327], in my own words, since the official one appeared too techno for me.

Comment: I have little additional comment here, except, I see similar methods indicated on his talkpage from other instances. Most of my content comments were in the edit summaries at the time. Please make a decision, rather than deciding not to decide. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. My post seems about 10 minutes too late. OK I 'd appreciate you look into it, even after both have been warned

User:JMDonovan reported by User:Ealdgyth (Result: 24h)

Page: Quo warranto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: JMDonovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff (also dups in two previous paragraphs)
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:

I also tried discussing on the user's talk page after the second insertion diff

It would be nice if someone would also remove the information again, as I won't revert again. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Further note of outside opinion sought by posting at the Content noticeboard: diff of my post and outside opinion agreeing with removal of information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the content again, and user blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Jamie❤S93 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:LVAustrian reported by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (Result: 48 h)

Page: RealClimate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: LVAustrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [328]

• 1st revert: [329]
• 2nd revert: [330]
• 3rd revert: [331]
• 4th revert: [332]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [333], user has previously been blocked for 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [334]

Comments:
reinsertion of critique from Patrick Michaels. Discussion on weight is ongoing at the talk-page - user has refused to self-revert (see link i provided on 3RR warning).

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2 of those are not violations of 3rr as far as I know. HaeB vandalized the page by removing dispute tags that cannot be removed until the discussion resolves the dispute. I simply replaced the tags.

One is a revert of WMC's blanking of the criticism. The other change was simply removal of material praising realclimate in accordance with KDP (above)'s opinion in the dicussion.. So even if the other two are considered "Reverts" for the 3rr rule, this one does not count. I did not add in material. I removed it to be logically consistent with his view.

The final change did replace the criticism and the praise, but this time I included more of the praise to put the complaint into context - per KDP's complaints. I am making good faith efforts to improve the article in the face of several editors who are warring to prevent any criticism(LVAustrian (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

I've tried the approved routes to get help with this article as well [335][336] other users have put up dispute tags and have joined in the discussion. KDP and others simply rely on numbers to keep reverting changes until they can block other users. I don't think they are editing in good faith.(LVAustrian (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

I have also not reverted the last change, as you will note [337] if I was trying to edit war and not improve the article, I would have reverted this just the same. (LVAustrian (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

My removal of the tag was announced and explained in my previous comment on the article's talk page, which you chose to ignore in your revert.

Your accusations of vandalism may be understandable as an effort to evade a second block under 3RR, but I find them very unfortunate in the light of the fact that I already asked you last week not to use that term for good-faith edits (made, in that case, by Stephan Schulz).

Note: The 1st revert given above ([338]) is not immediately recognizable as a revert, since there was one intermediate edit, but it undid this edit by Tony Sidaway.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing tags is not allowed, especially since this issue has been debated in an edit war lasting 6 days now (with a very long and very heated discussion page) in a broader controversy in which no criticism has been allowed to remain on the article for 2 years.(Meltwaternord (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring is unacceptable even when other users are participating. Revert and discuss appears to be the standard of editing there right now; the major contributors appear to be most active between about midnight and 0500 server time, so it may be necessary to lock the article later, though perhaps a warning will suffice. Wish me luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely that revert and discuss is unacceptable. Your admin rights permit you to issue warnings etc for this behaviour. Revert and Discuss is edit-warring on the first revert. What if a user does this on 10 pages a day? Or on 20? **There are plenty of eds who do this**, hunting in packs so that none goes over 3RR. Behaviour of this sort is scaring off many editors and some effort to control it needs to be made. The regulations give you wide powers to assess an editor's general behaviour in addition to the blunt 3RR instrument (necessary though it may be).

I'm only sorry you didn't apply the logic here to my case; my objection was to the lack of balance rather than the treatment I received. Dduff442 (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:ChaosMaster16 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: 24h)

Page: New Moon (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Eclipse (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ChaosMaster16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff for New Moon, diff for Eclipse

New Moon on the left, Eclipse on the right

• 1st revert: diff, diff
• 2nd revert: diff, diff
• 3rd revert: diff, diff
• 4th revert: diff, diff
• 5th revert: diff, diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move, Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move

Comments:
ChaosMaster16 appears to have a strong dislike of the titles of the two Twightlight films, engaging in uncivil behavior when moving them to their official names was proposed, then attempting to change the outcome of the two discussions noted above through heavy canvassing. Though consensus has clearly agreed on the titles of the films, he continues to try to insert his own personally preferred name in the leads of both articles. He's been reverted by 3-4 editors, warned by two, and its been noted in the New Moon discussion that he has no consensus on the claims. Despite this, he is continuing to revert. Others have attempted to talk to him on his talk page as well User_talk:ChaosMaster16#Re.3B_New_Moon. I got involved as a disinterested 3rd party from the Film project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 07:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Shamir1 reported by User:George (Result: 3 mos)

Page: Washington Institute for Near East Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This isn't a 3RR violation, it's a case of long term edit warring.

• October 30, 2009 - Shamir1 is blocked for 48 hours for using a sock puppet to violate 3RR.
• November 3, 2009 - Shamir1 is blocked for 72 hours for edit warring at the same article so close to previous block.
• November 6, 2009 - Shamir1 edits the same material they were previously blocked for, the day their block ends.

Shami1 disappears for three weeks.

• November 24, 2009 - Shamir1 returnes to the same article, making the same edit again. It was their first edits in three weeks. I reverted, asking in my edit summary that they "please follow the dispute resolution process and achieve consensus on talk before reverting".

Shamir1 disappears for two weeks.

• December 9, 2009 - Shamir1 makes the exact same edit yet again - their first in two weeks - without even attempting to form consensus or resolve the dispute.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has been blocked for edit warring on several occasions, including twice on this very article, so they are aware of Wikipedia policies. I asked that they build consensus or follow dispute resolution before reverting, but they ignored this and reverted anyways.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've engaged the editor a number of times on the talk page, however Shamir1 ignores requests to form a consensus for his edit before making it. I filed requests for 3O, RfC, and RSN (prior to Shamir1's previous two blocks for similar edits), and consensus was generally against Shamir1's position.

Comments:

This is getting to be tedious. The user drives by, makes a revert to this one article, then disappears for weeks at a time. They're making no attempt to actually resolve the dispute or build consensus for their edit, instead simply stating their position on talk, repeatedly, and engaging in a long, drawn out edit war. I believe they're hoping that by performing the same revert weeks apart that it may slip through the cracks. ← George ^talk 09:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe this editor's record would justify a block for long-term edit warring with no further discussion. But I've left Shamir1 an extra-serious warning and suggest that admins wait for his response before taking action. After he has been blocked four times for 3RR, I hope for (but do not expect) a promise that he will dramatically change his future behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Alright, EdJohnston, I at least am willing to wait for it. Hopefully there will be a positive response tonight. If Shamir1 does not edit again until after this report gets archived, please please will you and George keep a weather eye out for renewed tendentious editing? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If he does not respond within the normal archiving time for reports (72 hours) I suggest an admin should block him three months for edit-warring. He is a hit-and-run long-term warrior, who comes back periodically to reinsert his preferred version, with no regard for consensus. Giving him a short block is unlikely to make any difference; he has had four such blocks already. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked three months. It is not easy to deal with editors who constantly fight the same war and continue to earn blocks, but leave Wikipedia for long periods in between. Indef is one option. This three-month block should be long enough to get his attention, and any admin may lift it if Shamir1 gives some evidence that he is willing to follow our policies. The record gives little reason for optimism. EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User: Nouse4aname (Result: reporting user warned, page protected)

Resolved

 – OP continued to add copyrighted image to article. Page protected. OP warned. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel Nouse4aname should be blocked for persistent undoing on the 2009–10 Heineken Cup page.-Dunshocking (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SuaveArt reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result:No block )

Page: Conservatism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SuaveArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 03:51, 8 December 2009

1. 02:25, 9 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 04:13, 9 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 08:40, 9 December 2009 (edit summary: ""Patriotism" is too subjective a term. Nationalism is a more dictionary correct one")
4. 09:14, 9 December 2009 (edit summary: "patriotism is defined as "love for one's country" - that is completely meaningless here. Nationalism is the closest term, even if people perceive the term as derogatory (it isn't)")
5. 20:02, 9 December 2009 (edit summary: ""Christianty" is too open-ended a term to allow a neutral POV")
6. 20:42, 9 December 2009 (edit summary: "added quotes - term refers to a specific ideology, not an open-ended one (an appropriate link would be helpful)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [339]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [340] [341]

Comments:

Continued to edit article after report filed: [342] 08:25, 10 December 2009 The Four Deuces (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an content dispute with only two reverts, no block. Secret ^account 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Fifelfoo reported by User:Mosedschurte (Result: Self-revert)

Page: Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fifelfoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [343]

• 1st revert: "21:36, 9 December 2009"
• 2nd revert: "00:32, 10 December 2009"
• 3rd revert: "03:37, 10 December 2009"
• 4th revert: "04:06, 10 December 2009"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Please stop engaging in Edit War"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 'Discussion under topic "Mass Deletes"'

Comments:

About as straight up a 3RR violation as it gets. Four in seven hours.

Not to wade into substance here, but worse still, it involved the flat out deletion of around two thirds of the article each time, including numerous sources. One attempt involved slightly less deletions that the others, but the obvious repeated reverts are the repetitive deletion of nearly all text in the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not notified and invalid. The first edit is being BOLD. The other three are reverts. The "attempt at resolution" is invalid, the editor involved has failed to read article archives despite having them clearly pointed out to them. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the editor has made no attempt to wade into the substance of the article at all, including the consensus status of the article's editorial policy, or the fact that the sections blanked are COATRACKING, and accepted as POV by most of the articles' editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is rather unfair of Mosedshurte to warn Fifelfoo after the fourth revert listed and then not even notify him of this. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know [[User:Mosedschurte] from any other wikipedian, but its a shame that they didn't take the opportunity to inform themselves of the status of the article, or the structure of its editorial consensus—as they were asked to—given that they haven't previously contributed. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Self reverted
2. RFC requested Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Fifelfoo has self-reverted and is now pursing dispute resolution this report of edit-warring appears to be moot. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Though I would like to point out that User:Mosedschurte failed to participate in the discussion cycle of BRD, which is a terrible shame, as I'm assuming that they would have brought a new and fresh perspective to the article, not having been engaged in it, from what I can make out, in 2009. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) TFD's revert in the midst of this is of some import [344] at 01:52 on 10 Dec. Fifel has received warnings in the past. He was well aware of the #RR rules, and the fact that it is a discretionary line which can be drawn under the 4RR mark, especially when done in a matter of a few hours. Collect (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would avoid making vague allusions. Why is my edit of "some import"? I note too that following your RfC,[345] you have made a pattern of following my postings and contradicting them.[346][347][348] The Four Deuces (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit was exactly and precisely a duplicate of Fifelfoo's. Thank you most kindly for referring to material which has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand, nor has any purpose other than harassment of me. Please redact the PA. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are still making vague allusions. Why is it "of some import" that I made the same edit that Fifelfoo did? And I am not making a personal attack, merely pointing out that you consistently oppose my comments across a wide range of articles often with little or no basis. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(totally off-topic above) As you elide my agreement with you at least four times in the past month alone, this is starting to look like harassment on this page. Please redact. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Since Fifelfoo has self-reverted, there does not seem to be anything to do here. I note that the attempts on the talk page to start an RfC seem unlikely to succeed, due to the vagueness and one-sided formulations of the question to be answered. Can all the parties please try a little harder to work something out? I note that the article survived three AfDs, so we can't just kill it off. This article may be headed for a future of permanent full protection unless common sense breaks through at some point. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tedder reported by User:Atmoz (Result: Warned)

Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tedder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [349]

• 1st revert: [350]
• 2nd revert: [351]
• 3rd revert: [352]
• 4th revert: [353]

Admin then protected page to win dispute.[354]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A. Admin. Presumably knows about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A.

Comments:

• This is a regrettable incident. Tedder has become over-involved. He should not be blocked; but he should be asked to back off, and cease inflaming the dispute, and his protection should be removed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reviewers, please see the TLDR at User talk:Tedder#One last try ...; this has been an ongoing issue, and I've only been involved as a result from WP:RFPP (see Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Cease-fire on POV template). What I'm saying is my only interaction on this has been with my adminly hat on. I don't care about the article, nor have I commented on it one way or another. tedder (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Administrators (or administrator actions) are not exempt from 3rr. -Atmoz (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly inappropriate behavior, so I've issued a warning. No blocks necessary at the moment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The page is now protected at the edit warriors preferred version. I have no problem with an edit protection, but the tag should clearly be removed. Verbal chat 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It should also be noted that I warned hm of 3RR before he continued to revert without discussion. Verbal chat 22:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have left extended comments in this AN/I thread. Tedder was not involved. As far as I can tell, his only action ever on that or any other global warming page was last week, when he blocked GoRight for warring on that tag. Now, the other side of the debate is warring, and he could have easily blocked them like he blocked GoRight, but he gave them more chances to concede without blocking. And this is the thanks he gets - they report him to 3RR, forum-shop to AN/I, and falsely insinuate that he's involved. The warnings should be directed at WMC and Verbal, not Tedder. ATren (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)